Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on August 14, 2011, 10:04:PM
-
PC Collins looked in through wrong window to see Ralph's body
Raid team, including PC's Delgado and Collins, approached door from right, passing the kitchen window, and therefore, PC's Delgado and Collins could not have gone past the door to look in through the kitchen window to enable Collins to see a female body which he later says turned out to be the body of Ralph Bamber, an error he did not realize he had made until he actually got into the kitchen?
Collins could only have looked through the window marked "Office window", and if he saw a female body through that window, he could not have mistaken Ralph Bambers body for the female body, because both bodies would have been in completely different rooms downstairs...
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
s
Erm I think you need to go to specsavers, either that or look up 'notate' in a dictionary ::)
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
s
Erm I think you need to go to specsavers, either that or look up 'notate' in a dictionary ::)
Are you writing a concerto now Hartley? ::)
-
I wasn't intending to. ???
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
s
Erm I think you need to go to specsavers, either that or look up 'notate' in a dictionary ::)
Er - I see four upstairs windows, so I think I`ll give specsavers a miss, perhaps you should go instead?
-
Am I going mad? In that photograph which I obtained from the listed building register and then added notes to, there are three uptairs windows which I hadn't notated.
There is also a brick blind, which is not a window it's an architectural feature used to give continuation visually to fenestration on a building facade.
-
Now if your in a firearms team and your going to enter a house and someone has already produced a quick layout plan for you with info on it that is helpful what do you do?
The plan indicates a room the external door that entry will be gained through has a window so the area/room being entered can be checked before entry is made. It makes total sense to check through the relevant window prior to entry. The ones to the left of the door .
They even tried looking through the keyhole too...but could see nothing through that as a key was inserted in it(allegedly). This claim itself shows the importance of checking was in the mind of the firearms team.
-
looking through the floor plans produced for the prosecution it is clear that there is little detailing of the area around the back/kitchen compared to other areas.
It is as though the viewer is being directed away from this area of the house as the lack of detailing suggests it is of no interest. The viewer is thus misdirected into thinking only about the areas that are detailed.
This misdirecting may work with some but any decent investigator will question this issue and wonder why focus is being taken away from an area that could be of significant interest in getting to the truth of what really happened at whf.
As ever...we should focus not only on what we are told ..but what we are NOT told or informed about.
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
Hartley is obviously referring to the 3 windows he hasn't referenced with red pen. from the left 1-2-3.
-
Collins could only have looked through the window marked "Office window", and if he saw a female body through that window, he could not have mistaken Ralph Bambers body for the female body, because both bodies would have been in completely different rooms downstairs...
PC John Manners statement clearly indicates which direction the raid team approached the door, he also clearly indicates which window Collins looked through.
PC Manners statement can be seen in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1169.0.html
-
Collins could only have looked through the window marked "Office window", and if he saw a female body through that window, he could not have mistaken Ralph Bambers body for the female body, because both bodies would have been in completely different rooms downstairs...
PC John Manners statement clearly indicates which direction the raid team approached the door, he also clearly indicates which window Collins looked through.
PC Manners statement can be seen in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1169.0.html
no it does not...it mentions a wall...
but does not state which wall...the wall of the house or the wall that appears to the right when viewed in the photographs...
when someone ever uses left or right to describe something (other than say left hand or right leg) the viewpoint perspective needs to be given .
Manners statement does not give a viewpoint perspective so it is unclear which way he claims the firearms party approached the door.
When Hammersley purportedly described the boys beds he talks of a left bed but this is unclear in the text on which bed he means as he gives no viewpoint. Only later in a plan can it be worked out what he meant by left bed. Without clarification then using left or right to describe something is ambiguous...and sometimes statements are made to be ambiguous to allow for later changes of story.
-
I'm not terribly interested in discussing this with Smiffy.
What do other people think?
Here is an extract to Manners statement linked to in my previous post, he mentions approaching along the wall to the left of the premises, going past the door and looking into the kitchen, once inside they turned right into the kitchen.
I can't see how it can be interpreted in any way, than as I've described, it's very clear (to me).
-
I'm not terribly interested in discussing this with Smiffy.
What do other people think?
Here is an extract to Manners statement linked to in my previous post, he mentions approaching along the wall to the left of the premises, going past the door and looking into the kitchen, once inside they turned right into the kitchen.
I can't see how it can be interpreted in any way, than as I've described, it's very clear (to me).
.....
Look here, and then consider revising your interpretation - there is only a wall at one side of the kitchen door. If you are stood with the house door which the police smashed open with a sledge hammer behind you, the wall which PS Manners speaks about is located/situated to the left, not to the right. Since there is no wall to the right (if you were stood with your back towards to farmhouse), I do not believe you can interpret what PC Manners says, in the way you are trying to suggest because to put it bluntly there is no wall at the other side of the building which he could possibly be referring to?
There is no other wall on the right side of the farmhouse (if you were /are stood with your back to the farmhouse) and if you insist on pursuing that argument please provide proof that such a wall exists on the other side otherwise your argument is fundamentally flawed?
-
The other three windows upstairs which I didn't notate are from left to right:
Upstairs offce - box room/bed room - bathroom.
Er - I think it needs pointing out to you that there are four upstairs windows, not three...
In the picture posted I see 5 windows upstairs and a bricked up window.
Who is correct?
-
No I disagree, he clearly says "along the wall the the left of the premises".
In the first instance, I would say that his lefts and rights were from the perspective of facing the house and not facing away from the house, this would be consistent when he later says he turned right into the kitchen.
In the second instance, an approach along the garden wall you suggest would leave them completely exposed and not in cover, so I would expect it's more likely that they approached the door along the wall of the main house to the left of the door where they would not be exposed.
And in the third instance, the kitchen is mentioned twice, going past the door and looking through the window into the kitchen area, once inside they immediately turn right into the kitchen.
... ... ... ... ...
That's my take on it anyway.
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
-
I'm not terribly interested in discussing this with Smiffy.
What do other people think?
Here is an extract to Manners statement linked to in my previous post, he mentions approaching along the wall to the left of the premises, going past the door and looking into the kitchen, once inside they turned right into the kitchen.
I can't see how it can be interpreted in any way, than as I've described, it's very clear (to me).
I disagree with you .
The kitchen to the right is founded on entering the premises through the external door so in that case the orientation is totally clear.
For the house ..what is the left of the house and what is the right...do we take it from what we accept as being a view from the front or a view from the back...it is ambiguous unless a perspective is fixed to establish what is left or what is right.
ok common sense lesson over.
Woodcook and Manners both mention Collins and Delgado both going past the door to look through a window... in a manner that typically is seen in police statements when police witnesses tend to collude on what they write...there not supposed to do this and the big pretence is that they dont do this but anyone in the know is aware.
My view and the safest route from both Woodcock and Manners descriptions is that they approached from the left when looking at the back door so that they do speak of Collins and Delgado looking through the kitchen window. However I am not totally convinced of this as yet.
That said though ...I do wonder why they dont claim to have used a mirror to check but there may be an answer to that.
Woodcock claims he and Manners (Manners does not mention this) ...approached the green/white corner to do a recce. If so one would expect them to have checked the windows either side of the door in such an approach before bringing in the rest of the raid party.
It makes no sense at all to have the firearms team all creep under the window that looks into the area behind the door and not look through it to check prior to entry.....6 men with firearms and one also having a sledgehammer creeping low ..hmmm think about it.
Woodcock's statement and Manners look contrived and from an identical source at some parts which raises suspicion about those key elements.
Do remember that if Woodcock and Manners did do a a recce and check through the windows either side of the door an approach from the right hugging the wall would be safer with officers monitoring the upstairs window as they approached...ie the other firearms officers not in the raid team providing cover as well.
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
Mike - the whole of the front of the house is a wall - why are you choosing to interpret "wall" as meaning the garden wall, and not the house wall? It seems you are going out of your way to make something that is entirely consistent look like it's inconsistent.
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
I agree it cannot be in doubt, as per my previous post. ;)
I also believe that (in my opinion) that you don't really believe yourself here, either that or your theories in this thread (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1244.0.html) become null and void. The more you argue this point then the more you argue against your theory in that thread. If I didn't know better I might think you were playing games. :-\
And just to be clear, this is just my opinion, I am not putting words in your mouth or telling you what to think or anything else, this is just my take on it.
-
I'm not terribly interested in discussing this with Smiffy.
What do other people think?
Here is an extract to Manners statement linked to in my previous post, he mentions approaching along the wall to the left of the premises, going past the door and looking into the kitchen, once inside they turned right into the kitchen.
I can't see how it can be interpreted in any way, than as I've described, it's very clear (to me).
I disagree with you .
The kitchen to the right is founded on entering the premises through the external door so in that case the orientation is totally clear.
For the house ..what is the left of the house and what is the right...do we take it from what we accept as being a view from the front or a view from the back...it is ambiguous unless a perspective is fixed to establish what is left or what is right.
ok common sense lesson over.
Woodcook and Manners both mention Collins and Delgado both going past the door to look through a window... in a manner that typically is seen in police statements when police witnesses tend to collude on what they write...there not supposed to do this and the big pretence is that they dont do this but anyone in the know is aware.
My view and the safest route from both Woodcock and Manners descriptions is that they approached from the left when looking at the back door so that they do speak of Collins and Delgado looking through the kitchen window. However I am not totally convinced of this as yet.
That said though ...I do wonder why they dont claim to have used a mirror to check but there may be an answer to that.
Woodcock claims he and Manners (Manners does not mention this) ...approached the green/white corner to do a recce. If so one would expect them to have checked the windows either side of the door in such an approach before bringing in the rest of the raid party.
It makes no sense at all to have the firearms team all creep under the window that looks into the area behind the door and not look through it to check prior to entry.....6 men with firearms and one also having a sledgehammer creeping low ..hmmm think about it.
Woodcock's statement and Manners look contrived and from an identical source at some parts which raises suspicion about those key elements.
Do remember that if Woodcock and Manners did do a a recce and check through the windows either side of the door an approach from the right hugging the wall would be safer with officers monitoring the upstairs window as they approached...ie the other firearms officers not in the raid team providing cover as well.
------------
Its ambiguous, I agree, but at the end of the day there is only one wall, that wall is either to the right of the door (if facing the farmhouse) or to the left (if standing with your back to the farmhouse) - since there is only one wall, right or left of the door, and if Collins and Delgado went past the door to look into the window which they describe or refer to as the kitchen window, I think it is safe to conclude that they did not look in through the main kitchen window, but the other kitchen window, the one adjacent to the downstairs office?
I also agree with Smiffy, about when the recce which was done on the house before the approach of the main squad approaching the farmhouse, why didn't either of them see the body which Collins later claims to have seen there? Irrespective of him making a mistake about the sex of the body he saw or not - why wasn't there a body there at the time of the original recce?
How come Woodcock and manners, did not see what Collins saw, when he later went to one of the windows after the raid team approached the farmhouse door?
-
Its ambiguous, I agree, but at the end of the day there is only one wall,
Just out of interest... what do you call the walls of your house Mike if you don't call them "walls"?
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
I agree it cannot be in doubt, as per my previous post. ;)
I also believe that (in my opinion) that you don't really believe yourself here, either that or your theories in this thread (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1244.0.html) become null and void. The more you argue this point then the more you argue against your theory in that thread. If I didn't know better I might think you were playing games. :-\
And just to be clear, this is just my opinion, I am not putting words in your mouth or telling you what to think or anything else, this is just my take on it.
...
How come Woodcock and Manners did not see the body in the kitchen, when they went to do their recce, and yet later, Collins saw the female body when he went past the door with PC Delgado? If there was no body there at all when Woodcock and Manners looked through the downstairs windows, under what circumstances could a body have appeared there in the interim period, to enable PC Collins to see a female body there minutes later, that he describes as a female body?
Forget about female/male body for the moment - I am just trying to fathom out where the body came from between the Woodcock/manners recce, and the Collins/Delgado venture?
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
I agree it cannot be in doubt, as per my previous post. ;)
I also believe that (in my opinion) that you don't really believe yourself here, either that or your theories in this thread (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1244.0.html) become null and void. The more you argue this point then the more you argue against your theory in that thread. If I didn't know better I might think you were playing games. :-\
And just to be clear, this is just my opinion, I am not putting words in your mouth or telling you what to think or anything else, this is just my take on it.
...
How come Woodcock and Manners did not see the body in the kitchen, when they went to do their recce, and yet later, Collins saw the female body when he went past the door with PC Delgado? If there was no body there at all when Woodcock and Manners looked through the downstairs windows, under what circumstances could a body have appeared there in the interim period, to enable PC Collins to see a female body there minutes later, that he describes as a female body?
Forget about female/male body for the moment - I am just trying to fathom out where the body came from between the Woodcock/manners recce, and the Collins/Delgado venture?
Well a quick recce of the house does not imply they went off looking through windows (in my opinion).
Do you have Delgado's witness statement? Would you consider posting it for the purposes of this discussion?
-
Its ambiguous, I agree, but at the end of the day there is only one wall,
Just out of interest... what do you call the walls of your house Mike if you don't call them "walls"?
------
there are two main sides to my house, the front and the back..
-
Its ambiguous, I agree, but at the end of the day there is only one wall,
Just out of interest... what do you call the walls of your house Mike if you don't call them "walls"?
------
there are two main sides to my house, the front and the back..
Yes no doubt you have front and back walls. Unless the roof goes all the way to the ground like some of the strange constructions in Holland. I've never been to your house, so I'm just guessing here by the way.
-
Since there is no wall to the right of the farmhouse, only a wall to the left, the raid team could not have approached the farmhouse door, by any other route, other than using the wall I am referring to, which was/is to the left of the door as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being behind you, or to the right of the door, as viewed from the vantage point of the farmhouse being directly in front of you - since there is only one wall to one side of the door in question, I should think the direction the raid team approached the farmhouse door cannot be in any doubt?
Mike - the whole of the front of the house is a wall - why are you choosing to interpret "wall" as meaning the garden wall, and not the house wall? It seems you are going out of your way to make something that is entirely consistent look like it's inconsistent.
...............
The front of the house which you appear to be referring to, was actually the back of the farmhouse - in my opinion, you would not refer to the building itself as a wall, you would refer to it as the building or the premises, or for clarity, you would say the wall of the building, if that is what you were referring to. If you make a specific point of mentioning a wall, it can only mean a reference to an independent wall attached to the building on which ever side of the building it was attached to?
-
Its ambiguous, I agree, but at the end of the day there is only one wall,
Just out of interest... what do you call the walls of your house Mike if you don't call them "walls"?
------
there are two main sides to my house, the front and the back..
Yes no doubt you have front and back walls. Unless the roof goes all the way to the ground like some of the strange constructions in Holland. I've never been to your house, so I'm just guessing here by the way.
...........
There are in fact, only two main sides to my home, the front and back, because I live in a mid terrace house, although other houses in the area where I live, have three walls, or as the case may be four (if you include the detached premises or buildings) - but technically speaking, at whf there are/were four sides to the farmhouse, front, back, right and left...
For the purpose of being specific, that would be, right of the front face of the farmhouse, and left - or left of the rear face of the farmhouse, and right, depending upon your vantage point when you were making your observation...
-
Yes made out of masonry and actually called walls.
Anyway this is getting silly, we both know what each other is saying.
Regarding Delgado's statement, would you consider posting it? It's fine if you say no and I won't ask you again.
-
MANNERS ACTUAL WORDS.
An approach was made to the door along the wall to the left of the premises.
The wall which appears in the back view of the premises is seen to the right.
This wall encompasses what appears to be the garden area.
This same wall when viewed from the front of the premises is detached and to the left. This wall appears to be continuous and leads round to join the house at the rear.
Manners words apply well in that premises left or right sides are normally accepted as being from a front aspect. In such an aspect the wall is indeed to the left of the premises.
Manners says premises.
If Manners had said "along the wall to the left of the door" that would be perfectly clear..but he does not say that.
Neither does he say they approached along the wall to the left of the door.
He does not say the wall was part of the premises (as in building).
-
Yes made out of masonry and actually called walls.
Anyway this is getting silly, we both know what each other is saying.
Regarding Delgado's statement, would you consider posting it? It's fine if you say no and I won't ask you again.
...........
With respect, nobody refers to the front or back of their home as a wall, they say front of house/building or back...
Similarly, I would not expect a police officer to refer to the wall of the house, without mentioning that they were/are referring to the wall of the house, I would expect them to say the front of the house, or the back of the house...
Since, there is only one wall at the rear of the house, I think it is reasonable to conclude in the absence of any proper explanation, to conclude that the reference was to the wall in question, not to the back wall of the farmhouse?
I will be posting all the statements made by all the members of the raid team, whether they were made by themselves, or others acting on their behalf, in due course, on a separate thread - I am waiting for the right moment to introduce that particular section, so you and everyone else will have to be patient I am afraid...
-
Yes made out of masonry and actually called walls.
Anyway this is getting silly, we both know what each other is saying.
Regarding Delgado's statement, would you consider posting it? It's fine if you say no and I won't ask you again.
...........
With respect, nobody refers to the front or back of their home as a wall, they say front of house/building or back...
Similarly, I would not expect a police officer to refer to the wall of the house, without mentioning that they were/are referring to the wall of the house, I would expect them to say the front of the house, or the back of the house...
Since, there is only one wall at the rear of the house, I think it is reasonable to conclude in the absence of any proper explanation, to conclude that the reference was to the wall in question, not to the back wall of the farmhouse?
I will be posting all the statements made by all the members of the raid team, whether they were made by themselves, or others acting on their behalf, in due course, on a separate thread - I am waiting for the right moment to introduce that particular section, so you and everyone else will have to be patient I am afraid...
I disagree, but that's nothing new.
Thank you for saying that you will post those statements, I will be patient whilst looking forward to seeing them.
-
Yes made out of masonry and actually called walls.
Anyway this is getting silly, we both know what each other is saying.
Regarding Delgado's statement, would you consider posting it? It's fine if you say no and I won't ask you again.
...........
With respect, nobody refers to the front or back of their home as a wall, they say front of house/building or back...
Similarly, I would not expect a police officer to refer to the wall of the house, without mentioning that they were/are referring to the wall of the house, I would expect them to say the front of the house, or the back of the house...
Since, there is only one wall at the rear of the house, I think it is reasonable to conclude in the absence of any proper explanation, to conclude that the reference was to the wall in question, not to the back wall of the farmhouse?
I will be posting all the statements made by all the members of the raid team, whether they were made by themselves, or others acting on their behalf, in due course, on a separate thread - I am waiting for the right moment to introduce that particular section, so you and everyone else will have to be patient I am afraid...
I disagree, but that's nothing new.
Thank you for saying that you will those statements, I will be patient whilst looking forward to seeing them.
---------
Front of house/back of house - that's my take on it, or the wall at the front of the house, or the wall at the rear of the house, if I were to mention the wall of the house, I would be referring to a wall separate to the main building/premises, unless otherwise specified...
-
Linked to this matter - is the fact that there was some sort of confusion over the color coding attributed to the farmhouse (WHF) at the beginning of the operation? White side might not have been white side, Green side might not have been Green side, Red side might not have been Red side, and Black side might not have been Black side, at the beginning of the operation, it appears that somebody attributed the colors to different sides of the farmhouse at the beginning of the operation, than what they ended up as, at the end of the operation, but precisely how and why these were changed or altered is not clear?
Also note, that according to Jeremy, Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle (by reference to diagram drawn by Jeremy and handed to the police at the scene) should have been present at the scene at the material time?
-
Front of house/back of house - that's my take on it, or the wall at the front of the house, or the wall at the rear of the house, if I were to mention the wall of the house, I would be referring to a wall separate to the main building/premises, unless otherwise specified...
As per my previous post(s) I still disagree, perhaps these other statements will be able to open future discussions when you feel it's the right time to post them.
I think this has run it's course with neither of us agreeing.
But I am a sucker for the last word ;D.
-
In not really savvy on police operations Im afraid.The police called for a coroner and doctors etc for the murder victims.They also called for a police surgeon.Is it usual practice to call out a police surgeon for deceased people does anyone know?
-
In not really savvy on police operations Im afraid.The police called for a coroner and doctors etc for the murder victims.They also called for a police surgeon.Is it usual practice to call out a police surgeon for deceased people does anyone know?
Yes in order to certify death. You can read Dr Craig's statement here if it's of any interest.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
-
Front of house/back of house - that's my take on it, or the wall at the front of the house, or the wall at the rear of the house, if I were to mention the wall of the house, I would be referring to a wall separate to the main building/premises, unless otherwise specified...
As per my previous post(s) I still disagree, perhaps these other statements will be able to open future discussions when you feel it's the right time to post them.
I think this has run it's course with neither of us agreeing.
But I am a sucker for the last word ;D.
...
Well, lets get something clear, nobody could have seen Ralph's body sat on that chair behind the internal kitchen door, from the vantage point of being outside the main kitchen window, and so there is absolutely no chance or prospect of anyone mistaking Ralph's body, for that of a dead female, it just couldn't have happened like that. So, any reference to seeing a female body must have been made through the other window, the one to the left of the door that the police smashed open. Just as a matter of interest, you have never said how Ralph's head ended up in that coal bucket? Other posters may be interested in your views about how his head ended up there, without any injuries being sustained to his head (according to the pathologist) from his head coming into contact with the rim of the metal coal bucket?
Are you. for example, suggesting that the killer toppled over Ralph's body so that it ended up like that,. or that the killer simply placed Ralph's head in that coal bucket to prevent the spread of blood further afield on the main kitchen floor?
I would be interested to hear your views on this feature
-
I haven't suggested anything, I don't know how he ended up like that. What I have said in the past, is that there is no evidence to suggest that Ralph was not discovered in that position in that location when the police entered.
There is not a single tangible snippet of evidence which indicates that he was moved and placed there by the police. The near the door, in front of the door or behind the door descriptions are not (in my opinion) out of keeping with him being in that toppled over position, he is sufficiently near the door (again, in my opinion) to render those descriptions accurate and consistent.
Let's not forget that the murder had to get through that door to place the silencer in the gun cupboard, so to the contrary, there is evidence that suggests Ralph was not in the location you suggest when the police entered.
I already know your views on this, as indeed you also already know mine.
-
I have seen the documentary - Killing mum and dad, and the cameraman who took the footage showed views as he entered the kitchen through the very same door that members of the raid team would have had to enter the main kitchen and in that footage, all that you could/can see was a very fine slither of the kitchen window, not enough to be able to see anyone sat on a chair behind that internal door, and of course when I went there and looked through the window myself, you could not see the internal door without pressing you face/nose right up against the window pane and even then you could not see much of the door in question - I doubt very much that any police officer would press their nose right up to the glass of the main kitchen window, at a time when they suspected that Sheilas might be loose anywhere in the farmhouse, with a loaded gun?
-
I haven't suggested anything, I don't know how he ended up like that. What I have said in the past, is that there is no evidence to suggest that Ralph was not discovered in that position in that location when the police entered.
There is not a single tangible snippet of evidence which indicates that he was moved and placed there by the police. The near the door, in front of the door or behind the door descriptions are not (in my opinion) out of keeping with him being in that toppled over position, he is sufficiently near the door (again, in my opinion) to render those descriptions accurate and consistent.
Let's not forget that the murder had to get through that door to place the silencer in the gun cupboard, so to the contrary, there is evidence that suggests Ralph was not in the location you suggest when the police entered.
I already know your views on this, as indeed you also already know mine.
.................
Why would the pathologist state that there were no injuries upon the face or head of Ralph Bamber that were consistent with his face/head falling against the rim of the coal bucket, if Ralph's face/head had fallen against the rim of the metal coal bucket?
The only other alternative...
The killer placed Ralph's face/head inside the coal bucket with a view to preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the Kitchen floor - now why would any would be killer be remotely interested in preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the main kitchen floor? Why would any would be killer be interested in placing a towel, cushion covers from a number of wooden chairs, and a pair of cotton trousers on the floor around the base of the coal bucket?
I need to hear you views about why any would be killer would place such items on the main kitchen floor around the coal bucket, with the specific intention of controlling the spread of blood on the kitchen floor?
-
I have seen the documentary - Killing mum and dad, and the cameraman who took the footage showed views as he entered the kitchen through the very same door that members of the raid team would have had to enter the main kitchen and in that footage, all that you could/can see was a very fine slither of the kitchen window, not enough to be able to see anyone sat on a chair behind that internal door, and of course when I went there and looked through the window myself, you could not see the internal door without pressing you face/nose right up against the window pane and even then you could not see much of the door in question.
That is no different to what I have previously said, except if pressing your face against the window you can see approximately 50% of the door. But I am also saying that it's irrelevant because Ralphs body was found a few feet away from the door in front of the AGA. Which would then be very easily seen by looking through the kitchen window.
-
I have seen the documentary - Killing mum and dad, and the cameraman who took the footage showed views as he entered the kitchen through the very same door that members of the raid team would have had to enter the main kitchen and in that footage, all that you could/can see was a very fine slither of the kitchen window, not enough to be able to see anyone sat on a chair behind that internal door, and of course when I went there and looked through the window myself, you could not see the internal door without pressing you face/nose right up against the window pane and even then you could not see much of the door in question.
That is no different to what I have previously said, except if pressing your face against the window you can see approximately 50% of the door. But I am also saying that it's irrelevant because Ralphs body was found a few feet away from the door in front of the AGA. Which would then be very easily seen by looking through the kitchen window.
.............
No, you are wrong, you cannot evade trying to answer that point, and then simply say that Ralph's body was found in that position - the fact is, his body was not found in that position, it was moved there. It was either (a) toppled over so that his head fell into that coal bucket, or (b) his head was placed there to try and control the spread of blood around upon the kitchen floor?
His head either fell into that coal bucket, or it was placed there, now which is it that you are suggesting?
-
If the killer placed Ralph's head in that coal bucket, and it is your suggestion that the killer was the person who positioned the towel, cushions from the wooden chairs, and the pair of cotton trousers on the kitchen floor, with a view to preventing the spread of blood further afield upon the kitchen floor, then how would this fit in with the suggestion that such a killer intended for the police to fall for the idea that Sheila had killed everyone, and that she had then taken her own life?
Why would the killer think that the police would fall for the idea that Sheila was worried about the spread of blood further afield, on the kitchen floor?
-
Lets take the matter further - why weren't these items ( towel, cushion covers, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were used to control the spread of blood further afield on the kitchen floor) seized and made exhibits in the case?
-
Why would the pathologist state that there were no injuries upon the face or head of Ralph Bamber that were consistent with his face/head falling against the rim of the coal bucket, if Ralph's face/head had fallen against the rim of the metal coal bucket?
The only other alternative...
The killer placed Ralph's face/head inside the coal bucket with a view to preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the Kitchen floor - now why would any would be killer be remotely interested in preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the main kitchen floor? Why would any would be killer be interested in placing a towel, cushion covers from a number of wooden chairs, and a pair of cotton trousers on the floor around the base of the coal bucket?
I need to hear you views about why any would be killer would place such items on the main kitchen floor around the coal bucket, with the specific intention of controlling the spread of blood on the kitchen floor?
Well it's difficult to comment on things where no evidence exists, so as I said before I don't know why or how he ended up in that position.
I could speculate, but I would be no more accurate than what you are being by suggesting that the police stage managed his body.
If there was blood on the floor and walls directly behind the door then I would say you had something to speculate on, but there isn't, or at least there isn't any that has been recorded.
-
Lets take the matter further - why weren't these items ( towel, cushion covers, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were used to control the spread of blood further afield on the kitchen floor) seized and made exhibits in the case?
What references do you have which indicates that they were used to control blood flow, is it in witness statements, or is just what you are suggesting is the case?
-
Why would the pathologist state that there were no injuries upon the face or head of Ralph Bamber that were consistent with his face/head falling against the rim of the coal bucket, if Ralph's face/head had fallen against the rim of the metal coal bucket?
The only other alternative...
The killer placed Ralph's face/head inside the coal bucket with a view to preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the Kitchen floor - now why would any would be killer be remotely interested in preventing the spread of blood elsewhere on the main kitchen floor? Why would any would be killer be interested in placing a towel, cushion covers from a number of wooden chairs, and a pair of cotton trousers on the floor around the base of the coal bucket?
I need to hear you views about why any would be killer would place such items on the main kitchen floor around the coal bucket, with the specific intention of controlling the spread of blood on the kitchen floor?
Well it's difficult to comment on things where no evidence exists, so as I said before I don't know why or how he ended up in that position.
I could speculate, but I would be no more accurate than what you are being by suggesting that the police stage managed his body.
If there was blood on the floor and walls directly behind the door then I would say you had something to speculate on, but there isn't, or at least there isn't any that has been recorded.
--------
I think its unfair that Essex police will not release the original scenes of crime report, so that we can see where all the blood was found, and everything else of significance that they do not want Jeremy or those representing him to know about or see, so your claim that there was no additional blood found behind the door, or anywhere else, cannot be substantiated - Essex police do not say that no blood was/ not found behind that door, or anywhere else that has not been identified by any crime scene photographs now in the public domain?
Where are the original handwritten scenes of crime notes?
-
Lets take the matter further - why weren't these items ( towel, cushion covers, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were used to control the spread of blood further afield on the kitchen floor) seized and made exhibits in the case?
What references do you have which indicates that they were used to control blood flow, is it in witness statements, or is just what you are suggesting is the case?
...
So, it would appear that you are trying to imply that those items, the towel, the cushion covers from the wooden chairs, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were all so conveniently positioned around the base of the coal bucket on the floor of the kitchen were all there before Ralph's head either fell into that coal bucket, or before it was placed there?
What a tremendous coincidence...
I think we had better have a closer look at those/these items, to try and work out whether or not, they should have been seized and made exhibits in the case?
-
Lets study the scene of the Kitchen?
(1) I see three cushion covers from the wooden chairs on the floor around the coal bucket
(2) I see a towel on the floor in the immediate vicinity of the coal bucket
(3) I see a pair of cotton trousers in the immediate vicinity of the coal bucket
The positioning of the (1) three cushion covers around the base of the coal bucket seems to me to be of particular interest, especially the one closest to the body of Ralph Bamber - how could it have got there?
-
Cushion cover closest to the body of Ralph Bamber, must have fallen from the overturned wooden chair at a time when the police toppled over his body from its original position behind the internal door, and prior to the police re positioning his body so that his head was resting in the coal bucket?
Other two cushion covers, could not possibly have fallen into the position they ended up in, if they were tipped off the other wooden chairs, or stools, because the chairs are facing in the opposite direction away from the position of the coal bucket and the two stools are too far away from the coal bucket - hence somebody picked these up and moved them into the position they ended up being photographed in?
Lets also not forget that according to some police sources, two stools were knocked over, and re-positioned by members of the raid team as they forced their way into the kitchen - if true, why would those two cushion covers have been on the floor next to the coal bucket, before the police officers knocked over and re-positioned those two wooden stools?
-
from that picture I doubt anyones body without rigor motis already well established could end up in the position shown. While alive and for a fair while after death until rigor mortis was established the body would be too floppy so the position could not be retained.
he has been moved /body staged a fair number of hours after death...which points at the police being involved.
-
from that picture I doubt anyones body without rigor motis already well established could end up in the position shown. While alive and for a fair while after death until rigor mortis was established the body would be too floppy so the position could not be retained.
he has been moved /body staged a fair number of hours after death...which points at the police being involved.
----------
I agree...
-
If body of Ralph Bamber had already developed signs of "rigor mortis", by the time is body was placed with his head in the coal bucket, it raises question marks over the integrity of the pathologist, Peter Venezis?
For example...
Why hasn't Venezis stated that Ralph Bambers body was moved by someone, a long time after he died?
Would it be safe to conclude that Venezis must have known Ralph's body had been moved, but that he omitted these factors from his report, because he realized or knew that if he included them, it would point to the stage managing of Ralph's body by the police, in time for PC Bird (soc) to photograph it there in that position??
-
Over 30 different police officers traipsed through whf that (7th August 1985) morning, and yet not one of them appears to have questioned the position of Ralph Bambers body with his head in the coal bucket, or the position of the cushion covers, the towel, or the pair of cotton trousers at the base of the coal bucket, now there has to be a good reason for that?
In my opinion...
-
Has anyone even wondered why the coal bucket itself was not seized, or exhibited as part of the evidence in this case?
-
I think its unfair that Essex police will not release the original scenes of crime report, so that we can see where all the blood was found......
Yes, if that is the case then I agree completely.
-
Lets look at the potential exhibits that appear to be missing altogether in this case:-
(1) the coal bucket
(2) cushion cover (1)
(3) cushion cover (2)
(4) cushion cover (3)
(5) towel
(6) pair of cotton trousers
-
So, it would appear that you are trying to imply that those items, the towel, the cushion covers from the wooden chairs, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were all so conveniently positioned around the base of the coal bucket on the floor of the kitchen were all there before Ralph's head either fell into that coal bucket, or before it was placed there?
What a tremendous coincidence...
I think we had better have a closer look at those/these items, to try and work out whether or not, they should have been seized and made exhibits in the case?
No Mike that is not what I am implying, I am implying nothing.
You have decided that the police placed the items there and are stating it as fact, now don't get me wrong, I'm open to the possibility, but there is no evidence that that is the case (that I have seen or recall). To state it as fact on your whim doesn't wash with me, if you said they could have been placed there for that reason then I'd take it on board as such.
-
I think its unfair that Essex police will not release the original scenes of crime report, so that we can see where all the blood was found......
Yes, if that is the case then I agree completely.
----
Essex police produced an edited typed version which does not provide "sufficeint information" about where all the blood and other exhibits were found or recovered from - I do know that Jeremy has requested access to the original handwritten documentation, but this has/is being witheld under pii rules...
Now...
why would the police be seeking to withhold such documentary evidence?
-
I think its unfair that Essex police will not release the original scenes of crime report, so that we can see where all the blood was found......
Yes, if that is the case then I agree completely.
----
Essex police produced an edited typed version which does not provide "sufficeint information" about where all the blood and other exhibits were found or recovered from - I do know that Jeremy has requested access to the original handwritten documentation, but this has/is being witheld under pii rules...
Now...
why would the police be seeking to withhold such documentary evidence?
No idea. I'm sure you would say because they are hiding something, I don't come to that conclusion, in fact I don't come to any conclusion, but I am fully behind having everything released, I'd like to see things as much as you would.
-
So, it would appear that you are trying to imply that those items, the towel, the cushion covers from the wooden chairs, and the pair of cotton trousers, which were all so conveniently positioned around the base of the coal bucket on the floor of the kitchen were all there before Ralph's head either fell into that coal bucket, or before it was placed there?
What a tremendous coincidence...
I think we had better have a closer look at those/these items, to try and work out whether or not, they should have been seized and made exhibits in the case?
No Mike that is not what I am implying, I am implying nothing.
You have decided that the police placed the items there and are stating it as fact, now don't get me wrong, I'm open to the possibility, but there is no evidence that that is the case (that I have seen or recall). To state it as fact on your whim doesn't wash with me, if you said they could have been placed there for that reason then I'd take it on board as such.
...........
Do you not agree that if the items in question were already placed there before the raid team got into the kitchen, that it would have looked or appeared as very suspicious to the investigating officers that those items were there around the base of the coal bucket, and why Sheila would have been bothered about the spread of blood further afield, around and upon the kitchen floor? Then later, when the case against Jeremy was being pursued, do you not agree that this feature would have been a major part of the prosecutions case against Jeremy during the trial?
Why would the prosecution omit this feature as part of their case against Jeremy at and during the trial?
-
If details of where all the crime scene bullet cases were/are recorded in the scenes of crime register, then that would be a good enough reason for Essex police not to want to disclose it to Jeremy, or to those representing his interests, particularly if the position of the bullet cases contained within it, differs to the position the court was told they had been found in?
Do you not agree?
What if there were four bullet cases absent from the main bedroom area, as recorded in the scenes of crime register - what would your view be then?
What if, DRH/1 (or some other as yet unidentified bullet case), DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4 were not mentioned in the scenes of crime register at all, as being found or seized from the main bedroom at whf?
-
Mike, this is one area I can agree with a lot of your points. The postion RB was photographed in is very peculiar.
RB was, IMO, moved and placed in that position after death. I see no reason for the murderer to do this. The murderer would simply leave RB sat in the chair he died in. If RB had fallen from the chair shortly after death, and before rig mort had set in, he would be slumped on the floor.
If however RB was knocked from that chair after rig mort had set in (and it clearly had) this, I believe had to done by someone other than the murderer and, as I have mentioned before, I am still surprised more of this wasn't raised at the trial.
If I had been a jury member and had seen this photo I would certainly have had a lot of questions about it!!
However if the police did stage RB body it does not make JB innocent, It simply adds to the incompetence of the police, which I suppose could have helped the defence undermine the prosecutions case ???
Do you know how JB's current defence team is regarding this photo and have any queries relating to it been presented to the CCRC?
-
Mike, this is one area I can agree with a lot of your points. The postion RB was photographed in is very peculiar.
RB was, IMO, moved and placed in that position after death. I see no reason for the murderer to do this. The murderer would simply leave RB sat in the chair he died in. If RB had fallen from the chair shortly after death, and before rig mort had set in, he would be slumped on the floor.
If however RB was knocked from that chair after rig mort had set in (and it clearly had) this, I believe had to done by someone other than the murderer and, as I have mentioned before, I am still surprised more of this wasn't raised at the trial.
If I had been a jury member and had seen this photo I would certainly have had a lot of questions about it!!
However if the police did stage RB body it does not make JB innocent, It simply adds to the incompetence of the police, which I suppose could have helped the defence undermine the prosecutions case ???
Do you know how JB's current defence team is regarding this photo and have any queries relating to it been presented to the CCRC?
I think Craig said Ralph was perched on a stool.
-
Mike, this is one area I can agree with a lot of your points. The postion RB was photographed in is very peculiar.
RB was, IMO, moved and placed in that position after death. I see no reason for the murderer to do this. The murderer would simply leave RB sat in the chair he died in. If RB had fallen from the chair shortly after death, and before rig mort had set in, he would be slumped on the floor.
If however RB was knocked from that chair after rig mort had set in (and it clearly had) this, I believe had to done by someone other than the murderer and, as I have mentioned before, I am still surprised more of this wasn't raised at the trial.
If I had been a jury member and had seen this photo I would certainly have had a lot of questions about it!!
However if the police did stage RB body it does not make JB innocent, It simply adds to the incompetence of the police, which I suppose could have helped the defence undermine the prosecutions case ???
Do you know how JB's current defence team is regarding this photo and have any queries relating to it been presented to the CCRC?
------------
First of all, I do not think there can be much doubt if any at all, that Ralph's body was toppled from the chair behind the door through which the police entered the kitchen, and that at the time this occurred rigor mortis had already set in...
Secondly...
this photograph was not disclosed to Jeremy or his legal team, by the time of his trial at Chelmsford CC in October 1986, nor as I understand it by the time of his last failed appeal in 2002...
Thirdly, I should really explain for the benefit of everyone, how I came to end up in possession of this particular photograph, since I am sure everyone is puzzled as to why it was not utilizes during the trial or the appeal? Well, I came into possession of it, quite by accident whilst visiting Andrew Hunter at his Oxfordshire home. I had been fortunate enough to be invited to meet Andrew at his home to discuss features involved in the case, and during one such visit I saw the photograph in question amongst Andrews file on the case, and I asked if I could have a copy? At first Andrew was somewhat reluctant to give me a copy, but after I agreed to him blanking out the ghastly image of Ralphs body, he provided me with the copy that is posted on the forum. I have never asked Andrew where he got a copy of that photograph from, but I can say that it was not part of the court album (50) and as far as I know it was not part of the master copy album (223)?
I am sure a great many of you are already aware that Andrew Hunter raised questions in Parliament about Jeremy's case, and I assume he took possession or was given possession of such a photograph, and possibly others, as part of his investigation into these/those matters?
-
Mike, this is one area I can agree with a lot of your points. The postion RB was photographed in is very peculiar.
RB was, IMO, moved and placed in that position after death. I see no reason for the murderer to do this. The murderer would simply leave RB sat in the chair he died in. If RB had fallen from the chair shortly after death, and before rig mort had set in, he would be slumped on the floor.
If however RB was knocked from that chair after rig mort had set in (and it clearly had) this, I believe had to done by someone other than the murderer and, as I have mentioned before, I am still surprised more of this wasn't raised at the trial.
If I had been a jury member and had seen this photo I would certainly have had a lot of questions about it!!
However if the police did stage RB body it does not make JB innocent, It simply adds to the incompetence of the police, which I suppose could have helped the defence undermine the prosecutions case ???
Do you know how JB's current defence team is regarding this photo and have any queries relating to it been presented to the CCRC?
------------
Fist of all, I do not think there can be much doubt if any at all, that Ralph's body was toppled from the chair behind the door through which the police entered the kitchen, and that at the time this occurred rigor mortis had already set in...
Secondly...
this photograph was not disclosed to Jeremy or his legal team, by the time of his trial at Chelmsford CC in October 1986, nor as I understand it by the time of his last failed appeal in 2002...
Thirdly, I should really explain for the benefit of everyone, how I came to end up in possession of this particular photograph, since I am sure everyone is puzzled as to why it was not utilizes during the trial or the appeal? Well, I came into possession of it, quite by accident whilst visiting Andrew Hunter at his Oxfordshire home. I had been fortunate enough to be invited to meet Andrew at his home to discuss features involved in the case, and during one such visit I saw the photograph in question amongst Andrews file on the case, and I asked if I could have a copy? At first Andrew was somewhat reluctant to give me a copy, but after I agreed to him blanking out the ghastly image of Ralph's body, he provided me with the copy that is posted on the forum. I have never asked Andrew where he got a copy of that photograph from, but I can say that it was not part of the court album (50) and as far as I know it was not part of the master copy album (223)?
I am sure a great many of you are already aware that Andrew Hunter raised questions in Parliament about Jeremy's case, and I assume he took possession or was given possession of such a photograph, and possibly others, as part of his investigation into these/those matters?
Thanks Mike,
Could you please answer two more questions on this subject -
1) What photo of RB was shown to the Jury?
2) has this photo (of RB perched on the overturned chair and his head placed in a coal scuttle), and the relevant accompanying queries, been presented by JB's defence team to the CCRC?
-
Mike, this is one area I can agree with a lot of your points. The postion RB was photographed in is very peculiar.
RB was, IMO, moved and placed in that position after death. I see no reason for the murderer to do this. The murderer would simply leave RB sat in the chair he died in. If RB had fallen from the chair shortly after death, and before rig mort had set in, he would be slumped on the floor.
If however RB was knocked from that chair after rig mort had set in (and it clearly had) this, I believe had to done by someone other than the murderer and, as I have mentioned before, I am still surprised more of this wasn't raised at the trial.
If I had been a jury member and had seen this photo I would certainly have had a lot of questions about it!!
However if the police did stage RB body it does not make JB innocent, It simply adds to the incompetence of the police, which I suppose could have helped the defence undermine the prosecutions case ???
Do you know how JB's current defence team is regarding this photo and have any queries relating to it been presented to the CCRC?
------------
Fist of all, I do not think there can be much doubt if any at all, that Ralph's body was toppled from the chair behind the door through which the police entered the kitchen, and that at the time this occurred rigor mortis had already set in...
Secondly...
this photograph was not disclosed to Jeremy or his legal team, by the time of his trial at Chelmsford CC in October 1986, nor as I understand it by the time of his last failed appeal in 2002...
Thirdly, I should really explain for the benefit of everyone, how I came to end up in possession of this particular photograph, since I am sure everyone is puzzled as to why it was not utilizes during the trial or the appeal? Well, I came into possession of it, quite by accident whilst visiting Andrew Hunter at his Oxfordshire home. I had been fortunate enough to be invited to meet Andrew at his home to discuss features involved in the case, and during one such visit I saw the photograph in question amongst Andrews file on the case, and I asked if I could have a copy? At first Andrew was somewhat reluctant to give me a copy, but after I agreed to him blanking out the ghastly image of Ralph's body, he provided me with the copy that is posted on the forum. I have never asked Andrew where he got a copy of that photograph from, but I can say that it was not part of the court album (50) and as far as I know it was not part of the master copy album (223)?
I am sure a great many of you are already aware that Andrew Hunter raised questions in Parliament about Jeremy's case, and I assume he took possession or was given possession of such a photograph, and possibly others, as part of his investigation into these/those matters?
Thanks Mike,
Could you please answer two more questions on this subject -
1) What photo of RB was shown to the Jury?
2) has this photo (of RB perched on the overturned chair and his head placed in a coal scuttle), and the relevant accompanying queries, been presented by JB's defence team to the CCRC?
-----------
As far as I am aware, no photographs of Ralph were shown to the jury, nor did any form part of the court album, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong?
Police only officially took two photographs of Ralph's body in situ at the scene, if you choose to believe that...
Here are the relevant extracts from PC Birds photographic schedules:-
-
If you study these schedules closely enough, you will see that the photographs which are referred to in the COLP file, numbered, 6,7 and 8, do not tally with photographs listed in PC Birds (SOC) schedule at 6, 7 and 8, because only one of PC Birds photographs is dated, 7th August 1985, the other two (6 and 8) appear to have been taken on 10th September 1985...
-
Similarly...
Look at this part of PC Birds schedule, where he numbers the photographs in the court album, in particular, court album numbers 6, 7 and 8?
These bear the corresponding numbers 24 (6), 26 (7) and 23 (8), which were all taken on 7th August 1985...
However...
Photograph 23 which was taken at the scene on 7th August 1985, was the one showing the rifle to be leaning up against the bedroom window, a photograph which PC Bird took from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs looking back towards in the general direction of the bedroom door...
-
I think its unfair that Essex police will not release the original scenes of crime report, so that we can see where all the blood was found......
Yes, if that is the case then I agree completely.
----
Essex police produced an edited typed version which does not provide "sufficeint information" about where all the blood and other exhibits were found or recovered from - I do know that Jeremy has requested access to the original handwritten documentation, but this has/is being witheld under pii rules...
Now...
why would the police be seeking to withhold such documentary evidence?
Good question. Why would the police withhold key evidence like this under PII? It makes no sense at all - unless they were attempting to hide something.
-
I don't think anything Smiffy has said is as distastful as selling your house to move into rented WHF
-
I don't think anything Smiffy has said is as distastful as selling your house to move into rented WHF
Of course you don't.
-
how long after the murders did the eatons move into whitehouse farm?
-
Offending post / subsequent quotes have been removed by Andrea and my self.
-
which window did PC Collins claim he looked through?
-
how long after the murders did the eatons move into whitehouse farm?
This is a contentious issue, Andrea. Some of those connected to the case say this happened very quickly, others that it was many months after the masacre. Whenever they moved in it would have been too quick for me. There is no way on God's earth I could move into a house where five members of my family had either been murdered or committed suicide even years later. There's no house large or lovely enough to tempt me to do that.
-
yes i agree, i couldnt have moved there myself.
Its history is tragic to say the least
-
yes i agree, i couldnt have moved there myself.
Its history is tragic to say the least
............
Yes, there were a number of tragic deaths which have occurred there, over the past century, or so...
-
i would though, out of curiosity, like to go to whf, even just to see which room is where.
-
i would though, out of curiosity, like to go to whf, even just to see which room is where.
I drove past that way a few weeks ago en route to Colchester (I like to drive scenic routes sometimes and I hate A12), I went through Goldhanger and along Maldon Road to Tolleshunt D'Arcy. I'm not sure but could swear I saw the trees surrounding WHF -it's very flat land around there. It did feel a bit weird and surreal.
Another thing I noticed was even driving there during the day the road was very windy (as in curvy not weatherwise), I'd hate to drive there in the dark.
-
i can imagine hm, it would feel weird and eerie i suppose.
-
i would though, out of curiosity, like to go to whf, even just to see which room is where.
I drove past that way a few weeks ago en route to Colchester (I like to drive scenic routes sometimes and I hate A12), I went through Goldhanger and along Maldon Road to Tolleshunt D'Arcy. I'm not sure but could swear I saw the trees surrounding WHF -it's very flat land around there. It did feel a bit weird and surreal.
Another thing I noticed was even driving there during the day the road was very windy (as in curvy not weatherwise), I'd hate to drive there in the dark.
I've driven along there in the dark and it's unnerving, cars hurtle along that road and those bends at such reckless speeds.
-
yes i agree, i couldnt have moved there myself.
Its history is tragic to say the least
............
Yes, there were a number of tragic deaths which have occurred there, over the past century, or so...
Well you know how they say that certain events leave certain imprints.
-
Here's a view of the "unmarked" red painted aga:-
-
"U" shaped mark on front face of aga, was not made there until after police took these (above) pictures at the scene..
-
How on earth have they been allowed to get away with this? They (the prosecution) must know that the scratch is not there. Their own fucking team will have looked at this under high resolution. It is really disgraceful. If the scratch was there, then their own team would have shouted so from the rooftops.
Truly shameful.
-
The Eatons moved in five years after the murders.
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
-
i would though, out of curiosity, like to go to whf, even just to see which room is where.
Hartley did offer to give a virtual tour of the house, which would be the next best thing. I struggle with working out the upstairs layout.
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
Two cats lived there and the office was used, then the owners decided to sell it as a murder theme bed & breakie, the Eatons agreed with the owners (a charity by the way) that they would move in to stop it from happening.
I will add that, that is what I've been told, I do not have proof, so it's just hearsay I guess. :-\
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
Two cats lived there and the office was used, then the owners decided to sell it as a murder theme bed & breakie, the Eatons agreed with the owners (a charity by the way) that they would move in to stop it from happening.
I will add that, that is what I've been told, I do not have proof, so it's just hearsay I guess. :-\
I must admit, Harts, that I have read that the Eatons moved in much quicker than that - the children were still young enough to have nightmares, apparently?
-
yes i read that too, also i heard that sheilas ghost was supposedly haunting them ,telling them to find out the truth of what happened.
-
yes i read that too, also i heard that sheilas ghost was supposedly haunting them ,telling them to find out the truth of what happened.
As we've said before, it's a lovely house, and the land has to be farmed, but personally, I wouldn't even be able to spend one night in there.
-
when was the inspector wexford thing filmed?
diane keen actually went to whf to meet with anne eaton.
-
Wonder if the Eatons got paid for allowing tv cameras into the farmhouse for documentries and the like?
-
i would have thought so, my friends house was used on "this is personal" about the yorkshire ripper, she was paid for that.
-
when was the inspector wexford thing filmed?
diane keen actually went to whf to meet with anne eaton.
That's right. And the kitchen light fitting, broken on the night, hadn't been replaced. Apparently because "it was an antique, and hard to find." That has always troubled me.
-
what troubled you about it shona? or is it something you cant quite put your finger on? im like that sometimes.
-
Its almost as if AE wanted to keep the house like a shrine somehow.That is creepy.I wouldnt live there even if I was paid to,but if I did,I would want to remove every last trace of the murders.Completely redecorate the place.I can imagine it still looks pretty much the same today as it did back then.
-
Its almost as if AE wanted to keep the house like a shrine somehow.That is creepy.I wouldnt live there even if I was paid to,but if I did,I would want to remove every last trace of the murders.Completely redecorate the place.I can imagine it still looks pretty much the same today as it did back then.
Exactly. That broken light fitting, that they must have sat under, eaten under, seen every day would be a constant reminder of the terrible things that happened on that night.
-
Its almost as if AE wanted to keep the house like a shrine somehow.That is creepy.I wouldnt live there even if I was paid to,but if I did,I would want to remove every last trace of the murders.Completely redecorate the place.I can imagine it still looks pretty much the same today as it did back then.
Exactly. That broken light fitting, that they must have sat under, eaten under, seen every day would be a constant reminder of the terrible things that happened on that night.
This is not a comment on the actual murders. The Eatons must be made of sterner stuff than me.
-
yes i would have just put any light shade on it, rather than keep it as it was from when the shootings took place.
-
yes i would have just put any light shade on it, rather than keep it as it was from when the shootings took place.
I'm guessing that the house is listed, but to live there in peace you would have to change as much of it as possible. If, indeed, you had to live there. If it was me, I'd put a manager in and never go there again.
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
Two cats lived there and the office was used, then the owners decided to sell it as a murder theme bed & breakie, the Eatons agreed with the owners (a charity by the way) that they would move in to stop it from happening.
I will add that, that is what I've been told, I do not have proof, so it's just hearsay I guess. :-\
I must admit, Harts, that I have read that the Eatons moved in much quicker than that - the children were still young enough to have nightmares, apparently?
When do you think they moved in, Shona?
-
it must have been quickly as shona said the children were still young enough to be having nightmares about it.
-
I might be wrong!! So much conflicting stuff on here!! I need to ask Hartley!!
-
I believe that the Eatons moved in to secure the tenancy.
-
no youre right shona, i also read that about kids having nightmares.
-
Shona,Hartley has already stated that they moved in whf in 1992.To save the house being sold as a b&b?
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
Two cats lived there and the office was used, then the owners decided to sell it as a murder theme bed & breakie, the Eatons agreed with the owners (a charity by the way) that they would move in to stop it from happening.
I will add that, that is what I've been told, I do not have proof, so it's just hearsay I guess. :-\
I must admit, Harts, that I have read that the Eatons moved in much quicker than that - the children were still young enough to have nightmares, apparently?
Oh no I wasn't being unsure of when they moved in, just the b&b thing, the definately only moved in 1990, it's all legally traceable anyway. Janie was 7 and William a few years older in 85.
-
Shona,Hartley has already stated that they moved in whf in 1992.To save the house being sold as a b&b?
They were at whf for the COLP investigation.
-
so did the house stand empty for five years?
Two cats lived there and the office was used, then the owners decided to sell it as a murder theme bed & breakie, the Eatons agreed with the owners (a charity by the way) that they would move in to stop it from happening.
I will add that, that is what I've been told, I do not have proof, so it's just hearsay I guess. :-\
I must admit, Harts, that I have read that the Eatons moved in much quicker than that - the children were still young enough to have nightmares, apparently?
Oh no I wasn't being unsure of when they moved in, just the b&b thing, the definately only moved in 1990, it's all legally traceable anyway. Janie was 7 and William a few years older in 85.
Cheers, Harts. They were still little enough to be upset, then.
-
Sorry Hartley,my mistake.You have in the past said 1992 but is so easy to get confused.so much information to remember!
-
Yes stll young enough.
-
Sorry Hartley,my mistake.You have in the past said 1992 but is so easy to get confused.so much information to remember!
Yes I have, and incorrectly so, I've learnt more since then. As I say it is traceable, be it by voting records, council tax, business rates or whatever, if someone wants to take the time to confirm.
-
So it was my mistake, not yours. ;)
-
So it was my mistake, not yours. ;)
Well yes,but I was just being polite!
I have no intention of checking it out as it doesnt seem important in the grand scheme of things.
Whichever year they moved in is irrelevant to me.Its just not something that I could have done myself,but everyone to their own.
-
Yes stll young enough.
Mid to late teens...
-
What was it you said about being distracted by red herrings?
-
PC Collins. Delgado and Alexandra's starting point, was from the corner of red/white - WPC Julia Jeapes took up the position these police officers had been keeping before they moved off with the intention of entering the farmhouse - the journey they took from the corner of white/red, took them past the main kitchen window, to the door, and from that point ion, PC Collins and Delgado went to the other window and PC Collins peered in and reported that he could see the body of a female behind the door. This window could not have been the window to the main kitchen, where the body of Ralph Bamber was eventually found, PC Collins looked through the other window...
-
WPC Jeapes went to a position where she could see the front door of the farmhouse, and could only have been at the position shown in the aforementioned attached diagram - this means that when she relieved PC Alexandra-Smart, PC Collins and PC Delgado, that they must have been at that side of the farmhouse, and that these three officers who were members of the raid team set off to go to the farmhouse from that vantage point. If they set off to go to the back door of the farmhouse, they would have to first of all pass the main kitchen window, then arrive at the door in question...
Other evidence suggests that PC Collins and PC Delgado went passed the door to the window beyond the door and that PC Collins peered in through the window and reported seeing the body of a female...
Now...
The window which Collins appears to have peered into, could not have been the same kitchen that the body of Ralph Bamber was eventually found in, because Collins and the others would have looked into that window on their way to the door, but there is no evidence that they did, or if any of them did, that any of them saw anything through that window?
Here are the relevant extracts from WPC Julia Jeapes non disclosed witness statement for consideration:-
-
Whatever position WPC Julia Jeapes took up upon being deployed to the scene to take up a containment position, she had a view of the front door and the bedroom window on the first floor which she reports seeing what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window - at a time before the raid team went to get into the farmhouse at about 7:30am...
This is where, some confusion appears in her account:-
(1) she was deployed to take up a containment position at the corner of the building known as white/red, she relieved PC's Alexander-Smart, Collins and Delgado...
(2) She could see the front door
(3) She saw a window to the right of the door which was lit up which she understood was the kitchen
(4) A window on the first floor to the right of the door was lit up
(5) She saw what appeared to be a rifle leaning up against the bedroom window
Unless the color coding which is recorded on Jeremy Bambers diagram has been altered, and is wrong, WPC Juilia Jeapes could only have been located at the time of these observations, as shown in the attached diagram...
-
This where the matter starts to get very interesting:-
Since, if WPC Julia Jeapes was referring to what appeared to be a rifle that was leaning against the window top right in these pictures (BOX room), this would be an ideal vantage point from someone upstairs to look out into the courtyard to note the arrival of anyone to the scene?
If so, what happened to this rifle at the box room window?
Did police photograph it in position, or had it gone missing by the time police got into the farmhouse?
Why would light be switched on in either children's bedroom, or box room?
-
Was WPC Julia Jeapes referring to the front door at the front of the building, as viewed from her vantage point, and if so, is she mistakenly identifying the dining room window to the right of the door as the kitchen?
If so...
Was Sheila Caffells bedroom lit up at the time of her sighting?
-
If we run with the theory of someone forcing Ralph to phone JB with the purpose of luring him to whf and then waiting at whf for JB to arrive some things may make sense.
It would make sense to have the bedroom light on and curtains open to draw JB to the property.
It would make sense as well to place Ralphs body in a place in the kitchen where it could not be seen from the window. If this was the plan and JB saw Ralph's body he would be unlikely to enter.
The door would be probably unlocked at this time to allow JB to enter where a person lying in wait could kill him.